Section 10(30) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 10(30), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
M/s. The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd and M/s. The Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd v ACIT, Kottayam
ITATHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
I am a rubber planter. I cleared an old unproductive block and replanted it, and claimed the cost under rule 7A(2). The Assessing Officer has disallowed it. Is there anything I can do?
Not in Kerala. The Cochin Tribunal dismissed both appeals, holding itself bound by the Kerala High Court in Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd v CIT, which construed rule 7A(2) as covering only infilling — the replacement of dead or useless trees within an existing yielding area — and not the replanting of an area after cutting and removing an old plantation, and held that expenditure on planting and developing a plantation up to maturity must be capitalised. Rule 7A itself makes 35 per cent of the income from the specified rubber products taxable as business income and leaves 65 per cent as agricultural income for the State.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.